I'm glad you admit your failure. Lol Colorless would be the last adjective one would apply in describing Salman's iridescent prose. You have to be a mule to do that. Only the bogus sort of close-minded reader whose life is a bore and who's possibly sexually impotent would describe Salman's works as you do, my friend. In my experience, going from PG Wodehouse to Rushdie was like going from great Scotch to LSD.
@SilentSputnik - That's probably true. But then again Christopher Hitchens, from what I've been told about his huge brain and wonderful mind is, apparently, not like "other people" (though he puts his pants on one leg at a time like I do). So I would think such a grand thinker as Chris is would have "thought" about this and changed his name accordingly.
@flight1100 - How do you figure? The meaning of the name Christopher has an origin and a direct meaning behind the name. One would think a man as bright (allegedly) as Chris Hitchens would certainly know this and change his name.
@YouAreIsrael The origins of a name that are buried in the past have little relevance. I can not talk for Hitchens of coarse but for me to change it would be to acknowledge a value that does not exist. For example I call 25 Dec Christmas day simply because it is commonly known as such. Likewise the name Easter is derived from a pagan festival. Christians well know this but there is no attempt to change it. In modern English its ancient meaning is of no importance.
@flight1100 - I simply made the observation that, as an atheist, it would seem more consistent for CH to change his name since he denies the actual meaning of his name. Nor can the origin of the meaning of his name ever be buried in the past. If it meant "bearing Christ inside" at one time then it would still mean the same today.
@ialreadymadeone 1. How Green Was My Valley 2. For Whom the Bell Tolls 3. Coming Up For Air 4. Keep the Aspidistra Flying 5. A Clergyman's Daughter 6. Pale Fire 7. Remembrance of Things Past 8. Middlemarch 9. Ulysses 10. War & Peace 11. Crime & Punishment 12. Shame (Rushdie) 13. The Satanic Verses 14. The Moor's Last Sigh
Unrelated to this video...I think they should choose political leaders based on if they can match up with Hitchens in a debate. The world would be a better place.
Nabokov has always made me feel ashamed to write. To know that the man who makes me feel ashamed to debate feels likewise truly gives me a sense of my place on the totem pole.
Lets keep perspective, he reads a lot of story books.... allegorical ones at best. At the end of the day I find them wasteful. I can't stand reading fictitious material, utterly pointless in my opinion.
At some point I am going to slave drive my way through a few *must reads* but I can't help but think I should be reading some engineering book or something.
@CmdrTobs I use to be the same way until i read The Brothers karmazov. I realized quite quickly that the structure of fiction allows you to explore very real things and indulge in thought experiments of great magnitude. Literary fiction though is quite different than commercial fiction. The Davinci Code is by no means the same as the moors last sigh. I hope you come across a good fiction, my recommendation would be the Moors Last Sigh...Cheers
@CmdrTobs no problem, if you got any questions you can emilsstuff on twitter or my site emilsstuf Hitchens recommends Orwell a great deal. 1984 is not only a must read but a true page turner
@Emilsstuff Curious, but it's almost impossible to have a political conversation with anyone without reference to 1984 and Animal Farm. Two highly popular programs on UK TV at this moment are Big Brother and Room 101.
@gamesbok it's hard I believe because they both outline some of the worst effects that governments have & can have. Both books read in regular intervals through my life have always had something to offer. Government is for the people, often it forgets it, often we forget it. Literature like that serves a great purpose of enlightening the young, guiding the present & reenforcing the old. 1984 has it's grips in us, sometimes I'm afraid that it's become to common place room 101 was hell not a game
chris, why the "need" 2 numb urself with alchohol, being the enlightened one? there should be no need, but u r the epitome of a hypocrite, very similar to b. maher, whom i thing both of you are very insightful, yet, as ignorant as those u r attacking. put down the bottle c., and i will 2. can u? i can.
I love his description of the writing of Nabokov and Proust, that they "appear not to be written by human beings." Haven't read Proust yet but am a huge fan of Nabokov and couldn't have phrased a better description.
@TheFragile89 - First he mentions Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov (which I can personally recommend) and the second is actually only one collection or series of 7 books, called In Search of Lost Time (À la recherche du temps perdu), which was once named, and still sometimes incorrectly named -- sorry Hitchens, but the first is a more accurate translation of the French -- Rememberance of Things Past by Marcel Proust. The Proust collection is lengthy (7 books), but well worth it. ENJOY! :)
@Clifton100 Where did you get that figure on the number of books Hitchens has read? Mind you, I don't doubt it. Hitchens is undubtedly a learned man and I myself admire him immensely. But I want to know whether he has mentioned somewhere the number of books he has read. Thanks.
I am President Barack Obama's "best" and #1 friend on youtube. I have Mr.Obama's cell phone number as well. Please come to my channel. Please subscribe and be "my friend" and I can give you his cell phone number.
How does a video of Hitchens in his capacity as a literary critic descend into yet another religion debate? He's giving some great literary recommendations and youtubers still want to fight over the small matter of God.
It's a war between unquestioning faith (private revelation) and reason (public knowledge). The two are incomensurable. No rational argument can counter "I believe, therefore it is so, and anyone who doesn't agree is the voice of Satan."
@WastedTourist I'd actually relate it to his current political /humanitarian positions. I'm actually Very embarrasssed and ashamed to know that I've read some books that Hitchens endorses.. Thats all he is nowadays a fucking endoresment. He may as well be sponsored by Pepsi.
I have been looking closely at this Hitchens guy and I am not going to say he tells a lie But I thought I saw a fork tongue poking out when Hannity pressed him he started to spout Look I know he's British and all that stuff speaking so nicely but its just guff I could listen to him till the cows come home What a nice voice such a great tone He could be sticking a knife in my gizzard and get me to beieve that I was only a lizzard Hey buyer you beware don't you give this guy your ear
rewatching this again, i suddenly realise mr. hitchens have eyeliner around his wonderfully over-worked optical binoculars~~ maybe it's really about his "sexual charisma" afterall...=p
I don't think he does. If you look at photos of him as a young man, he has very beautiful eyes. I think he just looks like that naturally and has done himself a bad turn due to unhealthy lifestyle (as have I).
The reason religous people think that the world is devoid of joy if their faith is based in myth, is because they never bothered developing their appreciation and love for the real world around them as a result.
That's no more advanced of a thought than beleiving in a myth.
You have on average, about 75 or 80 years with which to live. If you can't find any joy in that time, it's not life's fault, life has plenty of secular blessings, it's yours.
Being as you have just jumped into this conversation, I think you are taking everything I have said out of context. Read back first.
I have have faith in God based on evidence in certain areas, this should not be enormously confusing. While I do not think I would be less happy if I were an atheist as happiness is based largely on temporal circumstances, I do think I would be less joyful. Joy is something which can exist in the worst of circumstances, when no physical blessings are apparent.
Subjectively beautiful, ultimately hopeless. You will not remember its beauty 80 years from now, because you will not exist and your conscience might as well have never been.
Life without God, is kind of a joke; but like bad gas, it will pass.
For you perhaps, but not for most rational people. Hope and faith are two diffenet things and you're using them in the wrong context, but it suits you to do so.
Chukmaty, I respectfully reject your second statement categorically. Hope is independent of many things, including faith. Hope is simply the desire for a beneficial (to you and/or yours) outcome. This needs no faith, nor reason, nor anything else but desire. And desire is quite different from belief. Just my two cents.
Taken, but that misses the original point which was that we do not operate only on things that evidence has completely proven. Not only would faith fall victim if we did, but hope.
Hope only requires no reason or faith if you have no expectation of your hope being realized. I think this is quite contrary to what most people believe when they say they hope for something. Therefore your two cents are worthless.
Most people don't view their hopes as transient apparitions. They view them as desired outcomes. You make no distinction between the two. Your thoughts are worthless.
If using Hoover Vacuum argument and equating Christian belief to Santa Clause isn't trying to ignore someones arguments by calling them stupid or silly, nothing is.
If I was ignoring your argument I wouldn't be on this website, would I? I equate Christian belief, Islamist belief, belief in general, not just in God, but especially in organised religion, to delusion. It is inherited in the main. Any truly independent thinker would be objective about it. I think 90% of people who 'believe' in God, have never thought about it at all because even to most Christians, being a Christian is not important, I know this because I was born into a Catholic family.
You are talking about being nominally identified. I know plenty of people who are nominal Christians and it is kind of sad, it is far more common in old denominations that were at one point a state religion (Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics particularly).
So essentially you are judging all Christians by the worst example of it? I was very lucky, Christianity was very real growing up and it mattered a great deal.
And it seems to me that you are simply skirting around the issue of the Hoover Vacuum argument being beyond retarded. It lowers the discussion and it does not prove anything.
Equating all religion to your own self admittedly stale experience is silly because others have engaged in very real prayer, worship, and service through faith.
Also, I have evidence that you do not have being that I have seen God working in peoples lives when you claim to have grown up not having it matter to anyone.
First, God is a dictator if he absolutely in control of everything to the extent of eliminating evil. Not that there is anything wrong with being an all knowing dictator.
But an absolute God that was capable of creating beings with free will, certainly is not morally required by any power higher than itself to then interfere with these beings that can select from options made available to them.
In fact what use is our subjective viewpoint? None.
markpianoman: Until the 40s scientists had not yet created fission because it is a complex process. This, however, has no relevance re: whether or not fission is a reality outside of our experiments.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Scientist have tried to produce life from organic material under ideal conditions but always fail because life is too complex. So how could it have occurred out there in some primordial soup? Even the single cell organism is mindboggling in its complexity. An ameba has so much genetic material in a single cell that it could fill a library of 50,000 volumes. Life had to come from an intelligence of infinite knowledge and power. Life did come from life - God.
And from what magnificent creater did God come from? And who spawned the maker of that maker? And so on. I'm sorry, but after a while, "God did it" just doesn't work. The spontaneous creation of life occurred at some level, most likely this one since there is little (aka, NO) evidence of a deity's existence.
God is the only all-powerful always-having-existed-in-eternity-past creator of the universe -- that is what makes him GOD and not a created being. He always existed in eternity past -- the one constant.
Faith is very rarely in a vacuum. As a child, we ca logically conclude whether or not we can have faith in our parents to care for us or not. While it may be logical to assume so, we cannot know for certain, we have faith and hope that they will. This faith and hope can be reassured by actions we know in the past and present.
I think that is fair, so it is also fair to say that there is evidence for God in my life which is personal.
What I was going for was saying that there being evidence does not mean that faith ceases to be needed, because we often do not have all the information and still need and operational faith to continue to function in a relationship.
A person who saw Christ in person would still need to have faith that he would keep his promises.
I have considerable less personal evidence than an apostle who would be willing to be martyred for Christ based upon his promises even though he saw Christ killed. This would imply that he saw him accomplish his primary promise and the one promise which all his other promises rely, that is his resurrection.
But it is essentially relative, until someone has all the information, faith is necessary to some extent. And one cannot hope in anything without faith to some extent.
You have NO evidence of a god of any description, faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Faith is completely irrational and is based on ignorance, that's a fact. Saying you have 'personal evidence' is the same as a child having faith that Santa Claus exists, it's no more relevant than that.
"You have NO evidence of a god of any description"
Yes I do. Evidence for god's existence in general is actually existence, as god in the most basic sense is defined as the transcendent un caused cause. This is evidence not proof.
More specifically, we have evidence through the Bible, through the martyrs, and through specific prophecies in the bible regarding Christ for his actions and person hood.
Finally and most important is the testimony of people who are changed after accepting Christ.
Also, faith is often based on knowledge, albeit incomplete knowledge, and is necessary for relationships to function. I gave the example of parental relationships earlier, and for the apostles who witness Jesus Christ firs the and as well as his ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection who then often were martyred for faith in his promises.
The Santa Clause example is terrible because we know it was never a story that was meant to be believed in the first place.
Santa Claus is a perfect example, it's a fairy tale that we are encouraged and supposed to believe, but we grow out of it. Unfortunately, we as a species we, in general, still feel the need to believe in an entity which was invented during a period of ignorance. Worse than that is people's insistence even to this day, that a violent piece of garbage such as the bible is proof of anything, it's not, that's a fact.
Santa Claus is not a tale that is meant to be believed, it is for fun. Like Lord of the Rings or Pokemon. I quickly tire of Hoover Vacuum arguments as they are only excuses for atheists to demean their opponents and to avoid having thoughtful discussion that challenge their worldview. If someone cannot make a good argument then simply call them stupid and run, it is the equivalent of a child plugging their years and yelling "I can't here you" at the top of their lungs.
I actually am glad you used the example of Santa Clause because that is one thing Children often have faith in other than their parents. It demonstrates how some faith is better than other faith, and how some faith can be based in truth with hope realized while having faith in other things can be empty.
Certainly you can see how having faith in future love of parents is a better thing to have than hope in Santa Clause.
It just says that Faith is something you can be told about, the facts and evidence have nothing to do with it. It's just sad that adults are wilfully neglectful of finding out about as much as they can aout everything and then drawing a conclusion, rather than inheriting a fallacious conclusion and persisting in believing that conclusion when everything in nature and the Universe goes against that conclusion. Faith leads to the wrong conclusion.
Faith actually is necessary in relationships, hope requires faith... so I suppose you are against hope?
I am as much about drawing conclusions based upon the facts as the next person. There are facts and there is evidence that points towards God and more specifically the Judeo Christian God, as with all things we do not know everything so some faith is required based on past performance.
You cannot have sufficient evidence to know all things in their specificity.
Hope has nothing to do with believing what an archaic text like the bible says. You can claim hope and 'faith' in the relationship context are 'Judeo-Christian' values, but they're not reserved for Judeo-Christians, they are humanist in nature. This things surely pre-date Judeo-Christianity, I'm not saying all Judeo-Christian dogma is wrong, I'm saying because some of it is right doesn't make it true.
Archaic is often just another word for old, in the case of the Bible which was written over millenia, by many authors, in many different cultural situations, is amazingly consistent and all working towards the person of Christ and his actions past, resent and future; old is not necessarily a detractor. In many ways it has connected many historical era's peoples, and cultures with a common thread.
That's a self-defeating argument, the bible is completely inconsistent, contradictory in fact, morally corrupt, filled with genocidal and infanticidal acts, it condones rape etc. etc. ad nauseum. Archaic in the sense that it was written in the dark ages by unknown people, the sources aren't even verified, yet it is believed without question. Baffling! I WOULD respect you if you believed in god without believing in the Bible, but anybody who believes in that that fairytale book delusional.
Many believe it in faith, which is not to say without question, because God has impacted there life in a very real way as young Christians. As they mature, it becomes obvious that God can take the lives of whomever he wishes, we hate him for that while we felt free to take the lives of innocent Germans in order to accomplish the moral imperative of defeating Nazism. Is that really much different than taking out Canaan and the Amalakites? We both know we don't know everything about either.
There is no proof that Christ existed, that's the truth. The story of Christ is an adapted one, There were many cultures pre-dating the bible which had a 'Christ' story i.e. virgin birth, performing of miracles, temptation by 'satan', betrayal, even crucifiction. Other clutires had their own flood stories etc. these were also adapted for the bible. To claim that the Bible is true is to be wilfully ignorant.
What facts and evidence 'point towards' God? I would have thought that most people see different religions as different facets of the adoration of one true God, that each facet sees their God as the one true God, but that religion itself is part of the human condiution, would you agree?
Well different faiths have mutually exclusive beliefs that directly contradict other faiths, they cannot be different aspects. Buddhism does not really even have a true deity. Islam looks at the Christian concept of the Trinity with utter disdain, they are not compatible intellectually. Why is religion a part of he human condition? It certainly has been for millennium. I believe it is a part of the human condition because special revelation is very real and because God has revealed himself.
So let me get this straight, you have acknowledged that religion is part of the human condition in that we are pre-disposed to believe in God yet with a derisive passage you have just demoted every other Religion in the world other than your own. I assume you believe that your 'path' is the correct one. What if you're wrong? Oh I forgot, 'Faith excludes right and wrong'.
Well duh, because truth does matter. And do not feed me this post modern relativistic bull, everyone believes their "path" is correct. It is called having a value system, one which can be right or wrong to different extents objectively.
Sorry if I have chosen to follow a transcendent God rather than an elemental god, and one who I have seen work in people's lives.
Do I risk being wrong? Of course I do. I welcome you to try to show my a faith that is more compelling than Christ.
Evidence can lead you towards faith. People who saw Christ in person, live, die, and rise again still had to have faith. Faith in his promises, faith that he is going to return, faith that the father sent the spirit, and faith that they are saved from their sin.
I know my parent exist, I knew that they were good to me, but I still had to have faith in their promises and future actions. I know that God has changed the lives of me and many of my friends. That sin hurts my relationship with God.
Knowing something and having faith are two different things. To compare the knowledge that your parents existed and the belief that god exists is farcical. I know your parents existed because you are alive, and so on with each preceding generation. Your belief in God is 'Faith', you believe in him because you want to believe in him..
It is a scientific principle (and also a Biblical one) that life always comes from life. And yet the evolutionist has to argue that life came from non-living material. How scientific is that? Has it ever been observed?
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
If you really step back and look at what that verse is saying, it makes complete sense! Here is a paraphrase to help you understand:
Since the creation of the world, creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature -- therefore, men who reject the creator are without excuse before God.
Since the creation of the world, creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature -- therefore, men who reject the creator are without excuse before God.
Really ,would you like to fill me in on how "creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature
Since this verse is truth i sure cant undestand why we have millions of people who havent witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature .
A sense of the existence of the divine is in everyone...but people can choose to deny it.
Look at the expanse of the stars and the universe...clearly witnessing to God's eternal power.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God.
And look at the tiny amoeba with it 50,000 volumes of genetic information...far more complex than our best scientists ever though just a couple decades ago.
One can not assume something is true before one proves it. You can't say the bible is true when you are trying to use the bible to prove your point...that's called circular reasoning.
No duh, amoebae wasn't fully understood. We didn't even know it existed for thousands of years. But you don't get to denounce science for learning. That's what knowledge does, it grows on itself. Scientists learn and look for the future, you Christians look to the past.
Just as amoebae were not "fully understood" just a couple centuries ago....science will have to constantly adjust its views and conclusion....until....in the end -- we come back to the fact that "God created the heavens and the earth."
Don't miss my point with the amoebae -- is simply that something sooo small can be sooo complex -- clearly evidence of the creator God.
that complex things are ry class will show that complex compounds form on their own. so "small and complex" means nothing more than "small and complex circular reasoning" makes no sense :) it's a logic fallacy. it *doesn't* make sense thats the whole point of it being bad logic and another interesting fallacy shows itself..."it's the only explination which makes sense" that is known as an argument from ignorance. it only makes sense to you.
But how exactly is the expansion of stars due to god's power and not gravitational forces? Or some basic Newtonian physics? Saying "god did it" doesn't cut it when there are alternative explanations that do far more for the idea....it's called occam's razor. And the issue of which god comes into question....even if it could be shown that some sort of supernatural deity exists, it'd have to be shown to be a Christian deity, and not, say, a Hindu one
qzetu, and who but God wrote the laws of gravity and physics which govern the expanse of the universe?
THE CREATOR GOD!
Col.1:16 - For by him (CHRIST) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Call it "circular reasoning" -- it's the only explanation which makes any sense.
ah, now you claim that science will find god, i question that. you have yet to give any evidence, or really any logical argument for the existence of any god at all, much less your own. science has yet to invoke a supernatural explanation for really anything. thats what makes it science and not religion. and your comment for the amoebae is understood, it's an argument from complexity, the idea that complex things are
created. a basic chemistry class will show that complex compounds form on their own.
so "small and complex" means nothing more than "small and complex" secondly, "circular reasoning" makes no sense :) it's a logic fallacy. it *doesn't* make sense thats the whole point of it being bad logic
and another interesting fallacy shows itself..."it's the only explination which makes sense" that is known as an arguement from ignorance. it only makes sense to you. sorry i made a mistake
let us examine that claim. what is life? what is DNA? what are cell walls, cell membranes, mitochondria, muscles, bone, brain material made from? all these are chemicals. and while abiogenesis still remains in it's developmental stages, it has made great strides in developing things like self replicating proteins or even basic carbon compounds needed for life. remember the amoebae? scientists are getting closer and closer to finding the "chemical equation" for life
What if they find that instead of there being a naturalistic explanation that science has rules out all naturalistic possibilities. Many scientists believe that we are heading in that direction. At some point we come across a problem that cannot be answered by science, possibly in several areas.
Since the fall of Paganism, no one has thought that natural events were individually connected to the supernatural, only that God was the author of a universe in which natural processes take place.
Paganism essentially is polytheism based on elemental or finite gods, Baals are a good example.
Cults are religions, denominations, etc that stray significantly from a religions basic faith text and are seen as proceeding an orthodox faith not preceding it.
2ndly, the literal biblical account of creation 7 days and the subseqent making of adam and eve goes against what we know to be true. if we take it literally, man and woman are not made from clay and ribs, but carbon compunds. adamn and eve, along with all the other animals and plants on this earth, did not develop from a puff of smoke like in some I Dream a Jeanie episode. you say it's the logical story, when really all the bible says is it is magic.
Magic is pretend and deception....hardly comparable with God's 6 days of creation.
God called the universe into existence by the "word of His power." If he wants to make man out of the "dust of the earth" he can do as he choses...and woman from the rib of man.
Something like Genesis is taken on faith, it is unfalsifiable and unprovable beyond it being connected to a God who claims taking part in other actions. One would only believe in Genesis if they already believed in that God and were then convinced that they could have faith in him in areas that are unprovable.
Science does not ask the question of how we (I mean the universe) got here. Only how it works now that it exists and seems to work harmoniously according to laws of mathematics.
The whole Bible requires you to believe in God before you read it. Otherwise it's just ridiculous really. In fact, even if you do believe in God and are true to yourself, the bible upon reading, would still be ridiculous. This goes for the Qu'ran also.
It seems that there needs to be a "want" that a nonbeliever has before they are converted. Funny though, because I believe Paul received a revelation that stopped him from being anti-Christian and take up the movement: how come this is not afforded to everyone?
This is an obviously self defeating argument. If the option would be afforded everyone in the same dramatic way as Paul, then no one afforded the opportunity would need it as they have all had the same opportunity. If God is to be excluded from all worlds but that were every being is uniformly made aware of him via being blinded on a road to a far off city then he indeed could not exist. However, we are afforded choice, with choice comes diversity, with diversity comes difference of experience.
That was exceedingly difficult to track, you should be a bit more lucid next time. I never said they have to have the same revelation as Paul, but one that affirms the existence of a God in a measurably similar way (the same effect of altering one's belief).
I don't blame you. My point was that we have different experiences in relation to the same God as Christians (we meaning Christianity, I know you are not a believer) because we are different people with choices who relate differently with the same being. Saul was a fascist, radical, murderous, and relentless maniac... so it stands to reason that the small whisper of Christ would likely have been drowned out, a more aggressive tact was required.
Contrast that with the way in which Christ dealt with the prostitute, the one that the teachers and pharisees wanted to have stoned. Christ is not a robot who responds to the human beings he loves as if they were homogeneous robots themselves.
I have never had a grand glorious experience like Paul, and never expect to on this earth. I doubt you will either.
God forces us to make a choice, he does not choose for us. For Paul the struggle was the cognitive dissonance of seeing the object of his hatred, Christ. He speaks to us were we are as individuals. He forces us to surrender that which is most valuable to us. My guess for you it is your intellectual freedom, or feeling of having it. You are intelligent, reasonable, realistic, and the last thing you want to to believe in is a fairly tale that apparently takes away your freedom.
Of course God chooses for us. If we assume an omnipotent and omniscient deity, then our power to choose is an illusion. Under the Christian model, God knew, and indeed, God decided everything we will ever do. He could have written our story any way he wanted. Assuming a supreme "celestial dictator," to use Hitchens' term, there is no free will.
All knowing and all powerful is not to be confused with all doing. And lets say God is all controlling, that is no different in reality than everything being decided from the word go by a non divine cause, determinism would in fact be more certain.
All knowing and all powerful are the same thing as all doing. If such a being existed, nothing could occur without their consent, by definition.
Therefore, God is not the "last best hope for free choice," as you fatuously put it, but its nullification. Belief in such a god entails the renunciation of free choice, and consequently, of personal responsibility, which seriously undermines our moral integrity.
"All knowing and all powerful are the same thing as all doing."
Lets say there is a broken car, I know everything I need to know about the car, and I have all the powers and time to fix the car, that does not mean I fix the car. Now if the car were sentient and alive, the car could have broken itself on its own accord.
And choosing to obey something greater than oneself is a choice, and hardly a moral failing. A free choice to obey is not a surrender of one's free choice.
Since you have all-knowledge of the car, all-ability and all-time to fix it, the fact that the car is not fixed is a decision on your part. But that's not even an adequate analogy to the God-man relationship. If you are God, then you explicitly permitted the car to 1) be conceived by the inventor, 2) physically assembled 3) become broken down. One who knows All Things and can do All Things decides All Things. Everything that happens, God knew about before hand and could have prevented/changed.
Consent is also different than doing. A parent can allow a child to fail, the failure could have been prevented by the parent, but it is however the child who failed and very likely the parent who succeeded.
The difference between a reliious person and a materialist is that the former can not only know a being powerful enough to create life, but a being who can also allow that life to act independently.
The Christian God is triune and relational, God acts independently within himself even.
Consent is Not different than "doing" if you are God. This seems like an unusual point of contention for a christian...don't you say that everything that happens is part of God's plan? Seems it would have to be, if God is omniscient and omnipotent. The human parent-child is another false analogy. If a parent lets their kid try rock-climbing, and the kid falls and dies, no one could say that the parent pre-meditated their child's death. By contrast, God both knew And allowed it.
Our independence and ability to act individually is what I believe is meant in Genesis when God says ( I quote roughly) "let us make man in our own image."
Even if we had no choice, and God controlled everything directly, no moral statement could be made by anyone other than God because morality involves choice, empathy, and self realization. Beings with no control can do non of those things truly.
No matter what you believe Genesis means, the implications and consequences of an omniscient and all-powerful God remain the same...
...and you make an enormous concession to me by acknowledging that the prospect of a God who rules with absolute power over us renders our moral decision-making defunct. I'm glad to see that I've convinced you.
Actually you missed my point entirely, without such a God our moral decision making is defunct.
We are either at the mercies of ourselves alone, thus unable to have a real moral basis for anything, or to have a god and ourselves in which case there is a small hope of an objective morality being possible.
Materialism offers no morality except that which you or I make up as we go.
If there is a god, there is a chance that there is something greater than materialism and determinism which offers us choice. Without a god, there is zero hope that we have choice and decision making as well as morality are certainly all illusion. To top it off, none of our decisions will really matter morally to the universe, for when we die out, so does our memory and our affect does not extend beyond our solar system. The rocks, gases, and dark matter will forget us and what we did.
First, how does an all-powerful dictator offer us choice? If he is all-powerful, he could make us want to choose one thing over another, if he so chose. Or not, if he so chose. Second, how does the non-existence of god take away our ability to make moral decisions? That makes no sense. Third, what does the prospect of our extinction have to do with morality? Does it just make you sad? You have a lot of explaining to do.
You still seem to be ignoring the very key difference between having power and using it, simply because God has power, does not mean he employs it to control everything he has created. You seem capable to accept a being big enough to create everything but not big enough to create something that can think for itself.
If there is no creator, we are not being with a purpose but rather a phenomenon, and morals are completely subjective. Having a creator implies we were created to be a certain way.
No, I understand fine. You refuse to acknowledge this fact: if God has ALL Power and ALL Knowledge, then if he decides to not intervene in any of the infinite number of events that occur in our universe, he is Causing the Outcome, since he knew Beforehand what would happen if he chose not to intervene. And, he could have altered the Outcome in any way he wanted, being All-Powerful. So please, stop and actually consider the implications of Omnipotence and Omniscience. They eliminate human choice.
Considering that God exists outside of time, it is not as if he knew something was coming and just sat and watched it pass, he created and the events of the universe occurred past, present, and future all in his immediate now. At least if you believe in the transcendent God of Job, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Human choice is not eliminated, at least with absolute certainty, because we are in the same universe as God, we simply do things along side each other... he obviously overseeing.
"...at least with absolute certainty..."That's a petulant and self-deceiving statement. You simply don't want to acknowledge that this Big Brother that's been planted in your head controls everything, according to your creed. You want to have it both ways. You want to be a slave, but you also want to think that your overseer allows you to be free(?)
And I haven't even asked you on what grounds you make such fantastic claims.
If he controls everything, the conversation is irrelevant, and it would be hardly different than what you believe.
If there is no god, and there is only materialism, then everything you do is a result of previous events in the physical universe, though complex they are completely acting within what we call "natural law" and a computer of infinite calculating ability would be able to compute what will happen a century from now just by knowing what is occurring right now.
No my friend, while I am sure you know quite a bit... I am afraid you have not demonstrated an argument for why God controls me like a marionette and are yourself unable to come to terms with the consequences of naturalistic materialism.
A God capable of creating everything from nothing is capable of allowing free will despite complete knowledge. If he chooses not to, then we have very little say in it either way.
I say it is possible to have human choice with a God, not certain. I obviously believe that there is human choice. Without a god however, there is most definitely NO choice made by humanity that is not 100% illusion. With the absence of the spiritual man, there is only material causation which is ultimately deterministic in nature.
If God allows no choice, or if there is no god, then this conversation is irrelevant as it occurred not from two free thinking beings, but predetermined destiny.
1)Why does the absence of god make all choices an illusion? 2) There is no "If God allows no choice," the answer is He Allows None. I've already established this, and you have failed to refute it. 3) If there is no god, how can anything be pre-determined? Who does this alleged pre-determining? Think before you type.
2) You never established that God allows no choice, your attempt was not very good to begin with, not to be mean. I never had anything to refute really, I did explain why you were mistaken. It is really as simple as lookin in a dictionary, if you want to think about it on a deeper level you need to understand how time only affects the temporal universe and not a transcendent God.
3) No does the predetermining, fate is set on a path regardless.
I very plainly did establish that the concept of your christian god allows no choice. I'd rather not repeat myself.
As a 21st-century Christian apologist, you have undertaken the impossible task of reconciling the ideas of divine totalitarianism with human liberty. And in that attempt, you have said that without god, nature determines for us what happens. Say it ain't so.
I am very glad that no Evidence exists to support the claims of Christianity. Death to tyrants.
The thumb-nail is hilarious!
MrEstarmes 1 week ago
brilliant video
MrJonkelp 1 week ago
Only Charlie Rose could make Christopher Hitchens boring.
194jms 3 months ago
I'm glad you admit your failure. Lol Colorless would be the last adjective one would apply in describing Salman's iridescent prose. You have to be a mule to do that. Only the bogus sort of close-minded reader whose life is a bore and who's possibly sexually impotent would describe Salman's works as you do, my friend. In my experience, going from PG Wodehouse to Rushdie was like going from great Scotch to LSD.
MetrazolElectricity 4 months ago
Comment removed
MetrazolElectricity 4 months ago
I, for one, fail to see the reverence (in Hitchens and others) for Rushdie. I find his writing bloated and colourless, personally.
But, each to their own.
mymentor 6 months ago
Shouldn't Christopher Higgins change his name? Christopher means "bearing Christ inside". Yet he denies Christ. Hmmm.
YouAreIsrael 1 year ago
@YouAreIsrael Most people don't give a shit about what their name is supposed to mean.
SilentSputnik 1 year ago 2
@SilentSputnik - That's probably true. But then again Christopher Hitchens, from what I've been told about his huge brain and wonderful mind is, apparently, not like "other people" (though he puts his pants on one leg at a time like I do). So I would think such a grand thinker as Chris is would have "thought" about this and changed his name accordingly.
Just an observation.
YouAreIsrael 1 year ago
@YouAreIsrael Or perhaps he thought about it very briefly and dismissed it as nonsense. Witch of coarse is exactly what it is.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 - How do you figure? The meaning of the name Christopher has an origin and a direct meaning behind the name. One would think a man as bright (allegedly) as Chris Hitchens would certainly know this and change his name.
YouAreIsrael 10 months ago
@YouAreIsrael The origins of a name that are buried in the past have little relevance. I can not talk for Hitchens of coarse but for me to change it would be to acknowledge a value that does not exist. For example I call 25 Dec Christmas day simply because it is commonly known as such. Likewise the name Easter is derived from a pagan festival. Christians well know this but there is no attempt to change it. In modern English its ancient meaning is of no importance.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 - I simply made the observation that, as an atheist, it would seem more consistent for CH to change his name since he denies the actual meaning of his name. Nor can the origin of the meaning of his name ever be buried in the past. If it meant "bearing Christ inside" at one time then it would still mean the same today.
YouAreIsrael 10 months ago
@YouAreIsrael Considering your interest in this, you might wonder why he hates to be called "Chris", accepts only "Christopher" as his name.
newguy33X 7 months ago
So intelligent and so *@)%)#! sexy!
Please forgive my outburst, but I'm just being honest.
: )
FrenchRealist1 1 year ago
it's kinda hard to understand him because of the quality of the video, anyone have a list of the books he mentioned?
ialreadymadeone 1 year ago
@ialreadymadeone 1. How Green Was My Valley 2. For Whom the Bell Tolls 3. Coming Up For Air 4. Keep the Aspidistra Flying 5. A Clergyman's Daughter 6. Pale Fire 7. Remembrance of Things Past 8. Middlemarch 9. Ulysses 10. War & Peace 11. Crime & Punishment 12. Shame (Rushdie) 13. The Satanic Verses 14. The Moor's Last Sigh
harhol 1 year ago
Unrelated to this video...I think they should choose political leaders based on if they can match up with Hitchens in a debate. The world would be a better place.
BrokenBard 1 year ago
Nabokov has always made me feel ashamed to write. To know that the man who makes me feel ashamed to debate feels likewise truly gives me a sense of my place on the totem pole.
josenros 1 year ago
@clifton100 hitch has ended many a thought with the phrase "and it shows" just wondering if u were referencing him, if so kudos
nicodemos91 1 year ago
Lets keep perspective, he reads a lot of story books.... allegorical ones at best. At the end of the day I find them wasteful. I can't stand reading fictitious material, utterly pointless in my opinion.
At some point I am going to slave drive my way through a few *must reads* but I can't help but think I should be reading some engineering book or something.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs I use to be the same way until i read The Brothers karmazov. I realized quite quickly that the structure of fiction allows you to explore very real things and indulge in thought experiments of great magnitude. Literary fiction though is quite different than commercial fiction. The Davinci Code is by no means the same as the moors last sigh. I hope you come across a good fiction, my recommendation would be the Moors Last Sigh...Cheers
Emilsstuff 1 year ago
@Emilsstuff Thanks, I feel like you genuinely empathize with my situation. I will purchase or rent that book at some point. Thank you.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs no problem, if you got any questions you can emilsstuff on twitter or my site emilsstuf Hitchens recommends Orwell a great deal. 1984 is not only a must read but a true page turner
Emilsstuff 1 year ago
@Emilsstuff i have that on audio book and have read a little of the lion & the unicorn
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@Emilsstuff Curious, but it's almost impossible to have a political conversation with anyone without reference to 1984 and Animal Farm. Two highly popular programs on UK TV at this moment are Big Brother and Room 101.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok it's hard I believe because they both outline some of the worst effects that governments have & can have. Both books read in regular intervals through my life have always had something to offer. Government is for the people, often it forgets it, often we forget it. Literature like that serves a great purpose of enlightening the young, guiding the present & reenforcing the old. 1984 has it's grips in us, sometimes I'm afraid that it's become to common place room 101 was hell not a game
Emilsstuff 7 months ago
Hitchens is a cipher; a useless passion.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
I will gladly take his book suggestions any day.
CaledoniaJeanne 1 year ago 4
Mr. Hitchens has one of the sexiest voices that I've ever heard in my lifetime.
CaledoniaJeanne 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christopher Hitchens is a dumb ass.
oitotheworld23 1 year ago
@oitotheworld23 haha... well it sure sounds like he pwned your sorry ass in more than one occasion!
SittingDuckDK 1 year ago
chris, why the "need" 2 numb urself with alchohol, being the enlightened one? there should be no need, but u r the epitome of a hypocrite, very similar to b. maher, whom i thing both of you are very insightful, yet, as ignorant as those u r attacking. put down the bottle c., and i will 2. can u? i can.
glenneveaux 1 year ago
I love his description of the writing of Nabokov and Proust, that they "appear not to be written by human beings." Haven't read Proust yet but am a huge fan of Nabokov and couldn't have phrased a better description.
turbozed 1 year ago
Get well soon, Hitch. We need you.
sqmuth 1 year ago 22
@TheFragile89 - First he mentions Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov (which I can personally recommend) and the second is actually only one collection or series of 7 books, called In Search of Lost Time (À la recherche du temps perdu), which was once named, and still sometimes incorrectly named -- sorry Hitchens, but the first is a more accurate translation of the French -- Rememberance of Things Past by Marcel Proust. The Proust collection is lengthy (7 books), but well worth it. ENJOY! :)
rjhjrt916 1 year ago
3:39 - 3:43, does anybody know what books he named there? I can't make out what he said.
TheFragile89 1 year ago
who said the quote that hitchen says in 1:22?
bangooisgood 1 year ago
I've read about 11,000 books less than Hitchens...
And it shows.
Clifton100 1 year ago 119
@Clifton100 he must read so fast.
MaxwellBennett 1 year ago
@Clifton100 Where did you get that figure on the number of books Hitchens has read? Mind you, I don't doubt it. Hitchens is undubtedly a learned man and I myself admire him immensely. But I want to know whether he has mentioned somewhere the number of books he has read. Thanks.
U2Quark 1 year ago
@Clifton100 This would make a perfect t-shirt!
josenros 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
MetrazolElectricity 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am President Barack Obama's "best" and #1 friend on youtube. I have Mr.Obama's cell phone number as well. Please come to my channel. Please subscribe and be "my friend" and I can give you his cell phone number.
pharmacyiii 2 years ago
How does a video of Hitchens in his capacity as a literary critic descend into yet another religion debate? He's giving some great literary recommendations and youtubers still want to fight over the small matter of God.
WastedTourist 2 years ago 5
The god debate is the greatest issue of our time
elfred1980 2 years ago
The God debate isn't really a debate.
It's a war between unquestioning faith (private revelation) and reason (public knowledge). The two are incomensurable. No rational argument can counter "I believe, therefore it is so, and anyone who doesn't agree is the voice of Satan."
chipmunkspunk 2 years ago 6
@chipmunkspunk But if you disagree, you are listening to the voice of Satan.
acr08807 1 year ago
@WastedTourist
You should change the word, "descent"
To "ascent".
hybridamerica 2 years ago
@WastedTourist I'd actually relate it to his current political /humanitarian positions. I'm actually Very embarrasssed and ashamed to know that I've read some books that Hitchens endorses.. Thats all he is nowadays a fucking endoresment. He may as well be sponsored by Pepsi.
saxengee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
rewatching this again, i suddenly realise mr. hitchens have eyeliner around his wonderfully over-worked optical binoculars~~ maybe it's really about his "sexual charisma" afterall...=p
toneshun 2 years ago
I don't think he does. If you look at photos of him as a young man, he has very beautiful eyes. I think he just looks like that naturally and has done himself a bad turn due to unhealthy lifestyle (as have I).
michellestmarie 2 years ago
The reason religous people think that the world is devoid of joy if their faith is based in myth, is because they never bothered developing their appreciation and love for the real world around them as a result.
slitheringinterstate 2 years ago 83
Or that people of faith recognize if faith is empty, the world is a cosmic joke and there is no hope.
chukmaty 2 years ago
chukmaty,
That's no more advanced of a thought than beleiving in a myth.
You have on average, about 75 or 80 years with which to live. If you can't find any joy in that time, it's not life's fault, life has plenty of secular blessings, it's yours.
slitheringinterstate 2 years ago
Being as you have just jumped into this conversation, I think you are taking everything I have said out of context. Read back first.
I have have faith in God based on evidence in certain areas, this should not be enormously confusing. While I do not think I would be less happy if I were an atheist as happiness is based largely on temporal circumstances, I do think I would be less joyful. Joy is something which can exist in the worst of circumstances, when no physical blessings are apparent.
chukmaty 2 years ago
That's not true, its what you think. You don't need faith to see the world is a beautiful place.
raunchbear 2 years ago
Subjectively beautiful, ultimately hopeless. You will not remember its beauty 80 years from now, because you will not exist and your conscience might as well have never been.
Life without God, is kind of a joke; but like bad gas, it will pass.
chukmaty 2 years ago
@slitheringinterstate Thank you for expressing that so neatly.
allaboutdmagic 1 year ago
@slitheringinterstate never heard it put better than this !
shanemacc 1 year ago
@slitheringinterstate Now read this in your mind using Hitchens voice. You've got yourself a hitchslap.
xomiakas 1 year ago 2
@slitheringinterstate lovely
TheGreatDeciever55 10 months ago
'Cancel out faith, and there is no hope. '
For you perhaps, but not for most rational people. Hope and faith are two diffenet things and you're using them in the wrong context, but it suits you to do so.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
No, hope is not based on evidence. If you operate free of faith you must also operate free of hope.
Hope is after all wanting something you cannot be sure you will get.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Chukmaty, I respectfully reject your second statement categorically. Hope is independent of many things, including faith. Hope is simply the desire for a beneficial (to you and/or yours) outcome. This needs no faith, nor reason, nor anything else but desire. And desire is quite different from belief. Just my two cents.
kurtjk01 2 years ago 4
Taken, but that misses the original point which was that we do not operate only on things that evidence has completely proven. Not only would faith fall victim if we did, but hope.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Hope only requires no reason or faith if you have no expectation of your hope being realized. I think this is quite contrary to what most people believe when they say they hope for something. Therefore your two cents are worthless.
Most people don't view their hopes as transient apparitions. They view them as desired outcomes. You make no distinction between the two. Your thoughts are worthless.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago
well, you got the hitchens tone! probably not so fun to drink with
theleequa 2 years ago
I didn't call you stupid, I just think you're deluded.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
If using Hoover Vacuum argument and equating Christian belief to Santa Clause isn't trying to ignore someones arguments by calling them stupid or silly, nothing is.
chukmaty 2 years ago
If I was ignoring your argument I wouldn't be on this website, would I? I equate Christian belief, Islamist belief, belief in general, not just in God, but especially in organised religion, to delusion. It is inherited in the main. Any truly independent thinker would be objective about it. I think 90% of people who 'believe' in God, have never thought about it at all because even to most Christians, being a Christian is not important, I know this because I was born into a Catholic family.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
You are talking about being nominally identified. I know plenty of people who are nominal Christians and it is kind of sad, it is far more common in old denominations that were at one point a state religion (Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics particularly).
So essentially you are judging all Christians by the worst example of it? I was very lucky, Christianity was very real growing up and it mattered a great deal.
chukmaty 2 years ago
And it seems to me that you are simply skirting around the issue of the Hoover Vacuum argument being beyond retarded. It lowers the discussion and it does not prove anything.
Equating all religion to your own self admittedly stale experience is silly because others have engaged in very real prayer, worship, and service through faith.
Also, I have evidence that you do not have being that I have seen God working in peoples lives when you claim to have grown up not having it matter to anyone.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Comment removed
metalmilitia1977 2 years ago
Digressing a bit, a quote:
"Is got willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not Omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, from whnce cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God."
- Epicurus
sanirday 2 years ago 3
Why must 'god' be 'benevolent' ?
I've never understood that.
Are we ?
It certainly would be nice though, it would be comforting.
pekoe67 2 years ago
lot of problems with that statement.
First, God is a dictator if he absolutely in control of everything to the extent of eliminating evil. Not that there is anything wrong with being an all knowing dictator.
But an absolute God that was capable of creating beings with free will, certainly is not morally required by any power higher than itself to then interfere with these beings that can select from options made available to them.
In fact what use is our subjective viewpoint? None.
chukmaty 2 years ago
markpianoman: Until the 40s scientists had not yet created fission because it is a complex process. This, however, has no relevance re: whether or not fission is a reality outside of our experiments.
hhiippiittyy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scientist have tried to produce life from organic material under ideal conditions but always fail because life is too complex. So how could it have occurred out there in some primordial soup? Even the single cell organism is mindboggling in its complexity. An ameba has so much genetic material in a single cell that it could fill a library of 50,000 volumes. Life had to come from an intelligence of infinite knowledge and power. Life did come from life - God.
markpianoman 2 years ago
And from what magnificent creater did God come from? And who spawned the maker of that maker? And so on. I'm sorry, but after a while, "God did it" just doesn't work. The spontaneous creation of life occurred at some level, most likely this one since there is little (aka, NO) evidence of a deity's existence.
Thanks Occam's Razor, you're the best!
allrightmeow1 2 years ago
God is the only all-powerful always-having-existed-in-eternity-past creator of the universe -- that is what makes him GOD and not a created being. He always existed in eternity past -- the one constant.
Makes complete logical sense!
markpianoman 2 years ago
Lol, watch out! Infinite regress ahead! You are copping out. The universe itself is more likely to be described by your comments.
No evidence for God.
Evidence for a universe (at least we think so)
God created the universe?
God created himself or always was?
Universe created itself or always was!
Which is more plausible, logically speaking?
909540 2 years ago 2
If that's enough for you, then I guess you're going to leave the science up to someone else.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
horrible logic. you have faith, therefore you believe. leave logic out of it.
surrogatemind 2 years ago
Faith is very rarely in a vacuum. As a child, we ca logically conclude whether or not we can have faith in our parents to care for us or not. While it may be logical to assume so, we cannot know for certain, we have faith and hope that they will. This faith and hope can be reassured by actions we know in the past and present.
chukmaty 2 years ago
But faith based on your parents actions is based on evidence if they beat you and tortured you would not have faith in them.
bcmalloy 2 years ago
I think that is fair, so it is also fair to say that there is evidence for God in my life which is personal.
What I was going for was saying that there being evidence does not mean that faith ceases to be needed, because we often do not have all the information and still need and operational faith to continue to function in a relationship.
A person who saw Christ in person would still need to have faith that he would keep his promises.
chukmaty 2 years ago
I have considerable less personal evidence than an apostle who would be willing to be martyred for Christ based upon his promises even though he saw Christ killed. This would imply that he saw him accomplish his primary promise and the one promise which all his other promises rely, that is his resurrection.
But it is essentially relative, until someone has all the information, faith is necessary to some extent. And one cannot hope in anything without faith to some extent.
chukmaty 2 years ago
You have NO evidence of a god of any description, faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Faith is completely irrational and is based on ignorance, that's a fact. Saying you have 'personal evidence' is the same as a child having faith that Santa Claus exists, it's no more relevant than that.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
"You have NO evidence of a god of any description"
Yes I do. Evidence for god's existence in general is actually existence, as god in the most basic sense is defined as the transcendent un caused cause. This is evidence not proof.
More specifically, we have evidence through the Bible, through the martyrs, and through specific prophecies in the bible regarding Christ for his actions and person hood.
Finally and most important is the testimony of people who are changed after accepting Christ.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Also, faith is often based on knowledge, albeit incomplete knowledge, and is necessary for relationships to function. I gave the example of parental relationships earlier, and for the apostles who witness Jesus Christ firs the and as well as his ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection who then often were martyred for faith in his promises.
The Santa Clause example is terrible because we know it was never a story that was meant to be believed in the first place.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Santa Claus is a perfect example, it's a fairy tale that we are encouraged and supposed to believe, but we grow out of it. Unfortunately, we as a species we, in general, still feel the need to believe in an entity which was invented during a period of ignorance. Worse than that is people's insistence even to this day, that a violent piece of garbage such as the bible is proof of anything, it's not, that's a fact.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Santa Claus is not a tale that is meant to be believed, it is for fun. Like Lord of the Rings or Pokemon. I quickly tire of Hoover Vacuum arguments as they are only excuses for atheists to demean their opponents and to avoid having thoughtful discussion that challenge their worldview. If someone cannot make a good argument then simply call them stupid and run, it is the equivalent of a child plugging their years and yelling "I can't here you" at the top of their lungs.
chukmaty 2 years ago
I actually am glad you used the example of Santa Clause because that is one thing Children often have faith in other than their parents. It demonstrates how some faith is better than other faith, and how some faith can be based in truth with hope realized while having faith in other things can be empty.
Certainly you can see how having faith in future love of parents is a better thing to have than hope in Santa Clause.
chukmaty 2 years ago
It just says that Faith is something you can be told about, the facts and evidence have nothing to do with it. It's just sad that adults are wilfully neglectful of finding out about as much as they can aout everything and then drawing a conclusion, rather than inheriting a fallacious conclusion and persisting in believing that conclusion when everything in nature and the Universe goes against that conclusion. Faith leads to the wrong conclusion.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Faith actually is necessary in relationships, hope requires faith... so I suppose you are against hope?
I am as much about drawing conclusions based upon the facts as the next person. There are facts and there is evidence that points towards God and more specifically the Judeo Christian God, as with all things we do not know everything so some faith is required based on past performance.
You cannot have sufficient evidence to know all things in their specificity.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Hope has nothing to do with believing what an archaic text like the bible says. You can claim hope and 'faith' in the relationship context are 'Judeo-Christian' values, but they're not reserved for Judeo-Christians, they are humanist in nature. This things surely pre-date Judeo-Christianity, I'm not saying all Judeo-Christian dogma is wrong, I'm saying because some of it is right doesn't make it true.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Archaic is often just another word for old, in the case of the Bible which was written over millenia, by many authors, in many different cultural situations, is amazingly consistent and all working towards the person of Christ and his actions past, resent and future; old is not necessarily a detractor. In many ways it has connected many historical era's peoples, and cultures with a common thread.
Cancel out faith, and there is no hope.
chukmaty 2 years ago
That's a self-defeating argument, the bible is completely inconsistent, contradictory in fact, morally corrupt, filled with genocidal and infanticidal acts, it condones rape etc. etc. ad nauseum. Archaic in the sense that it was written in the dark ages by unknown people, the sources aren't even verified, yet it is believed without question. Baffling! I WOULD respect you if you believed in god without believing in the Bible, but anybody who believes in that that fairytale book delusional.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Many believe it in faith, which is not to say without question, because God has impacted there life in a very real way as young Christians. As they mature, it becomes obvious that God can take the lives of whomever he wishes, we hate him for that while we felt free to take the lives of innocent Germans in order to accomplish the moral imperative of defeating Nazism. Is that really much different than taking out Canaan and the Amalakites? We both know we don't know everything about either.
chukmaty 2 years ago
There is no proof that Christ existed, that's the truth. The story of Christ is an adapted one, There were many cultures pre-dating the bible which had a 'Christ' story i.e. virgin birth, performing of miracles, temptation by 'satan', betrayal, even crucifiction. Other clutires had their own flood stories etc. these were also adapted for the bible. To claim that the Bible is true is to be wilfully ignorant.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
What facts and evidence 'point towards' God? I would have thought that most people see different religions as different facets of the adoration of one true God, that each facet sees their God as the one true God, but that religion itself is part of the human condiution, would you agree?
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Well different faiths have mutually exclusive beliefs that directly contradict other faiths, they cannot be different aspects. Buddhism does not really even have a true deity. Islam looks at the Christian concept of the Trinity with utter disdain, they are not compatible intellectually. Why is religion a part of he human condition? It certainly has been for millennium. I believe it is a part of the human condition because special revelation is very real and because God has revealed himself.
chukmaty 2 years ago
So let me get this straight, you have acknowledged that religion is part of the human condition in that we are pre-disposed to believe in God yet with a derisive passage you have just demoted every other Religion in the world other than your own. I assume you believe that your 'path' is the correct one. What if you're wrong? Oh I forgot, 'Faith excludes right and wrong'.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Well duh, because truth does matter. And do not feed me this post modern relativistic bull, everyone believes their "path" is correct. It is called having a value system, one which can be right or wrong to different extents objectively.
Sorry if I have chosen to follow a transcendent God rather than an elemental god, and one who I have seen work in people's lives.
Do I risk being wrong? Of course I do. I welcome you to try to show my a faith that is more compelling than Christ.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Evidence can lead you towards faith. People who saw Christ in person, live, die, and rise again still had to have faith. Faith in his promises, faith that he is going to return, faith that the father sent the spirit, and faith that they are saved from their sin.
I know my parent exist, I knew that they were good to me, but I still had to have faith in their promises and future actions. I know that God has changed the lives of me and many of my friends. That sin hurts my relationship with God.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Knowing something and having faith are two different things. To compare the knowledge that your parents existed and the belief that god exists is farcical. I know your parents existed because you are alive, and so on with each preceding generation. Your belief in God is 'Faith', you believe in him because you want to believe in him..
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
Comment removed
pekoe67 2 years ago
It is a scientific principle (and also a Biblical one) that life always comes from life. And yet the evolutionist has to argue that life came from non-living material. How scientific is that? Has it ever been observed?
markpianoman 2 years ago
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
If you really step back and look at what that verse is saying you might come to my conclusion "its a bunch of crap .
qzetu 2 years ago
If you really step back and look at what that verse is saying, it makes complete sense! Here is a paraphrase to help you understand:
Since the creation of the world, creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature -- therefore, men who reject the creator are without excuse before God.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Since the creation of the world, creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature -- therefore, men who reject the creator are without excuse before God.
Really ,would you like to fill me in on how "creation itself clearly witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature
Since this verse is truth i sure cant undestand why we have millions of people who havent witnesses to the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature .
qzetu 2 years ago
A sense of the existence of the divine is in everyone...but people can choose to deny it.
Look at the expanse of the stars and the universe...clearly witnessing to God's eternal power.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God.
And look at the tiny amoeba with it 50,000 volumes of genetic information...far more complex than our best scientists ever though just a couple decades ago.
markpianoman 2 years ago
One can not assume something is true before one proves it. You can't say the bible is true when you are trying to use the bible to prove your point...that's called circular reasoning.
No duh, amoebae wasn't fully understood. We didn't even know it existed for thousands of years. But you don't get to denounce science for learning. That's what knowledge does, it grows on itself. Scientists learn and look for the future, you Christians look to the past.
qzetu 2 years ago
Just as amoebae were not "fully understood" just a couple centuries ago....science will have to constantly adjust its views and conclusion....until....in the end -- we come back to the fact that "God created the heavens and the earth."
Don't miss my point with the amoebae -- is simply that something sooo small can be sooo complex -- clearly evidence of the creator God.
markpianoman 2 years ago
that complex things are ry class will show that complex compounds form on their own. so "small and complex" means nothing more than "small and complex circular reasoning" makes no sense :) it's a logic fallacy. it *doesn't* make sense thats the whole point of it being bad logic and another interesting fallacy shows itself..."it's the only explination which makes sense" that is known as an argument from ignorance. it only makes sense to you.
qzetu 2 years ago
the only context it's logical in is in a universe where the laws of physics no longer apply
qzetu 2 years ago
That the creator God put it all in place is fully logical considering that he is the author of the laws of physics in which we operate.
markpianoman 2 years ago
But how exactly is the expansion of stars due to god's power and not gravitational forces? Or some basic Newtonian physics? Saying "god did it" doesn't cut it when there are alternative explanations that do far more for the idea....it's called occam's razor. And the issue of which god comes into question....even if it could be shown that some sort of supernatural deity exists, it'd have to be shown to be a Christian deity, and not, say, a Hindu one
qzetu 2 years ago
qzetu, and who but God wrote the laws of gravity and physics which govern the expanse of the universe?
THE CREATOR GOD!
Col.1:16 - For by him (CHRIST) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Call it "circular reasoning" -- it's the only explanation which makes any sense.
markpianoman 2 years ago
ah, now you claim that science will find god, i question that. you have yet to give any evidence, or really any logical argument for the existence of any god at all, much less your own. science has yet to invoke a supernatural explanation for really anything. thats what makes it science and not religion. and your comment for the amoebae is understood, it's an argument from complexity, the idea that complex things are
qzetu 2 years ago
created. a basic chemistry class will show that complex compounds form on their own.
so "small and complex" means nothing more than "small and complex" secondly, "circular reasoning" makes no sense :) it's a logic fallacy. it *doesn't* make sense thats the whole point of it being bad logic
and another interesting fallacy shows itself..."it's the only explination which makes sense" that is known as an arguement from ignorance. it only makes sense to you. sorry i made a mistake
qzetu 2 years ago
There is a huge difference between "complex compounds forming on their own" and life beginning on its own.
The biblical decree of how life began (through the instrumentation of God) is the only logical explanation for life and the universe.
markpianoman 2 years ago
let us examine that claim. what is life? what is DNA? what are cell walls, cell membranes, mitochondria, muscles, bone, brain material made from? all these are chemicals. and while abiogenesis still remains in it's developmental stages, it has made great strides in developing things like self replicating proteins or even basic carbon compounds needed for life. remember the amoebae? scientists are getting closer and closer to finding the "chemical equation" for life
qzetu 2 years ago
What if they find that instead of there being a naturalistic explanation that science has rules out all naturalistic possibilities. Many scientists believe that we are heading in that direction. At some point we come across a problem that cannot be answered by science, possibly in several areas.
Since the fall of Paganism, no one has thought that natural events were individually connected to the supernatural, only that God was the author of a universe in which natural processes take place.
chukmaty 2 years ago
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
sinprelic 2 years ago
Paganism basically means any religion not Christianity.....
Just like all religious ARE cults there is no real distinction only the popular cults are labeled otherwise
bcmalloy 2 years ago
Wrong, like completely wrong.
Paganism essentially is polytheism based on elemental or finite gods, Baals are a good example.
Cults are religions, denominations, etc that stray significantly from a religions basic faith text and are seen as proceeding an orthodox faith not preceding it.
chukmaty 2 years ago
2ndly, the literal biblical account of creation 7 days and the subseqent making of adam and eve goes against what we know to be true. if we take it literally, man and woman are not made from clay and ribs, but carbon compunds. adamn and eve, along with all the other animals and plants on this earth, did not develop from a puff of smoke like in some I Dream a Jeanie episode. you say it's the logical story, when really all the bible says is it is magic.
qzetu 2 years ago
Magic is pretend and deception....hardly comparable with God's 6 days of creation.
God called the universe into existence by the "word of His power." If he wants to make man out of the "dust of the earth" he can do as he choses...and woman from the rib of man.
markpianoman 2 years ago
And this is not magic?
kingdave84 2 years ago
Something like Genesis is taken on faith, it is unfalsifiable and unprovable beyond it being connected to a God who claims taking part in other actions. One would only believe in Genesis if they already believed in that God and were then convinced that they could have faith in him in areas that are unprovable.
Science does not ask the question of how we (I mean the universe) got here. Only how it works now that it exists and seems to work harmoniously according to laws of mathematics.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Science does indeed seek to ask the question of our origins: Big Bang for instance.
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Not really, as that is not an origin of law or matter... but merely and event which made matter expand rapidly.
chukmaty 2 years ago
True enough, thanks for correcting me.
PTurchan1 2 years ago
The whole Bible requires you to believe in God before you read it. Otherwise it's just ridiculous really. In fact, even if you do believe in God and are true to yourself, the bible upon reading, would still be ridiculous. This goes for the Qu'ran also.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
It seems that there needs to be a "want" that a nonbeliever has before they are converted. Funny though, because I believe Paul received a revelation that stopped him from being anti-Christian and take up the movement: how come this is not afforded to everyone?
PTurchan1 2 years ago
This is an obviously self defeating argument. If the option would be afforded everyone in the same dramatic way as Paul, then no one afforded the opportunity would need it as they have all had the same opportunity. If God is to be excluded from all worlds but that were every being is uniformly made aware of him via being blinded on a road to a far off city then he indeed could not exist. However, we are afforded choice, with choice comes diversity, with diversity comes difference of experience.
chukmaty 2 years ago
That was exceedingly difficult to track, you should be a bit more lucid next time. I never said they have to have the same revelation as Paul, but one that affirms the existence of a God in a measurably similar way (the same effect of altering one's belief).
PTurchan1 2 years ago
I don't blame you. My point was that we have different experiences in relation to the same God as Christians (we meaning Christianity, I know you are not a believer) because we are different people with choices who relate differently with the same being. Saul was a fascist, radical, murderous, and relentless maniac... so it stands to reason that the small whisper of Christ would likely have been drowned out, a more aggressive tact was required.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Now that does make sense. Anyways my brother, have a good day.
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Comment removed
chukmaty 2 years ago
Contrast that with the way in which Christ dealt with the prostitute, the one that the teachers and pharisees wanted to have stoned. Christ is not a robot who responds to the human beings he loves as if they were homogeneous robots themselves.
I have never had a grand glorious experience like Paul, and never expect to on this earth. I doubt you will either.
chukmaty 2 years ago
God forces us to make a choice, he does not choose for us. For Paul the struggle was the cognitive dissonance of seeing the object of his hatred, Christ. He speaks to us were we are as individuals. He forces us to surrender that which is most valuable to us. My guess for you it is your intellectual freedom, or feeling of having it. You are intelligent, reasonable, realistic, and the last thing you want to to believe in is a fairly tale that apparently takes away your freedom.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Of course God chooses for us. If we assume an omnipotent and omniscient deity, then our power to choose is an illusion. Under the Christian model, God knew, and indeed, God decided everything we will ever do. He could have written our story any way he wanted. Assuming a supreme "celestial dictator," to use Hitchens' term, there is no free will.
mammers11 2 years ago
All knowing and all powerful is not to be confused with all doing. And lets say God is all controlling, that is no different in reality than everything being decided from the word go by a non divine cause, determinism would in fact be more certain.
God is the last best hope for free choice.
chukmaty 2 years ago
All knowing and all powerful are the same thing as all doing. If such a being existed, nothing could occur without their consent, by definition.
Therefore, God is not the "last best hope for free choice," as you fatuously put it, but its nullification. Belief in such a god entails the renunciation of free choice, and consequently, of personal responsibility, which seriously undermines our moral integrity.
mammers11 2 years ago
"All knowing and all powerful are the same thing as all doing."
Lets say there is a broken car, I know everything I need to know about the car, and I have all the powers and time to fix the car, that does not mean I fix the car. Now if the car were sentient and alive, the car could have broken itself on its own accord.
And choosing to obey something greater than oneself is a choice, and hardly a moral failing. A free choice to obey is not a surrender of one's free choice.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Since you have all-knowledge of the car, all-ability and all-time to fix it, the fact that the car is not fixed is a decision on your part. But that's not even an adequate analogy to the God-man relationship. If you are God, then you explicitly permitted the car to 1) be conceived by the inventor, 2) physically assembled 3) become broken down. One who knows All Things and can do All Things decides All Things. Everything that happens, God knew about before hand and could have prevented/changed.
mammers11 2 years ago
Consent is also different than doing. A parent can allow a child to fail, the failure could have been prevented by the parent, but it is however the child who failed and very likely the parent who succeeded.
The difference between a reliious person and a materialist is that the former can not only know a being powerful enough to create life, but a being who can also allow that life to act independently.
The Christian God is triune and relational, God acts independently within himself even.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Consent is Not different than "doing" if you are God. This seems like an unusual point of contention for a christian...don't you say that everything that happens is part of God's plan? Seems it would have to be, if God is omniscient and omnipotent. The human parent-child is another false analogy. If a parent lets their kid try rock-climbing, and the kid falls and dies, no one could say that the parent pre-meditated their child's death. By contrast, God both knew And allowed it.
mammers11 2 years ago
Our independence and ability to act individually is what I believe is meant in Genesis when God says ( I quote roughly) "let us make man in our own image."
Even if we had no choice, and God controlled everything directly, no moral statement could be made by anyone other than God because morality involves choice, empathy, and self realization. Beings with no control can do non of those things truly.
chukmaty 2 years ago
No matter what you believe Genesis means, the implications and consequences of an omniscient and all-powerful God remain the same...
...and you make an enormous concession to me by acknowledging that the prospect of a God who rules with absolute power over us renders our moral decision-making defunct. I'm glad to see that I've convinced you.
mammers11 2 years ago
Actually you missed my point entirely, without such a God our moral decision making is defunct.
We are either at the mercies of ourselves alone, thus unable to have a real moral basis for anything, or to have a god and ourselves in which case there is a small hope of an objective morality being possible.
Materialism offers no morality except that which you or I make up as we go.
chukmaty 2 years ago
If there is a god, there is a chance that there is something greater than materialism and determinism which offers us choice. Without a god, there is zero hope that we have choice and decision making as well as morality are certainly all illusion. To top it off, none of our decisions will really matter morally to the universe, for when we die out, so does our memory and our affect does not extend beyond our solar system. The rocks, gases, and dark matter will forget us and what we did.
chukmaty 2 years ago
First, how does an all-powerful dictator offer us choice? If he is all-powerful, he could make us want to choose one thing over another, if he so chose. Or not, if he so chose. Second, how does the non-existence of god take away our ability to make moral decisions? That makes no sense. Third, what does the prospect of our extinction have to do with morality? Does it just make you sad? You have a lot of explaining to do.
mammers11 2 years ago
You still seem to be ignoring the very key difference between having power and using it, simply because God has power, does not mean he employs it to control everything he has created. You seem capable to accept a being big enough to create everything but not big enough to create something that can think for itself.
If there is no creator, we are not being with a purpose but rather a phenomenon, and morals are completely subjective. Having a creator implies we were created to be a certain way.
chukmaty 2 years ago
No, I understand fine. You refuse to acknowledge this fact: if God has ALL Power and ALL Knowledge, then if he decides to not intervene in any of the infinite number of events that occur in our universe, he is Causing the Outcome, since he knew Beforehand what would happen if he chose not to intervene. And, he could have altered the Outcome in any way he wanted, being All-Powerful. So please, stop and actually consider the implications of Omnipotence and Omniscience. They eliminate human choice.
mammers11 2 years ago
Considering that God exists outside of time, it is not as if he knew something was coming and just sat and watched it pass, he created and the events of the universe occurred past, present, and future all in his immediate now. At least if you believe in the transcendent God of Job, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Human choice is not eliminated, at least with absolute certainty, because we are in the same universe as God, we simply do things along side each other... he obviously overseeing.
chukmaty 2 years ago
"...at least with absolute certainty..."That's a petulant and self-deceiving statement. You simply don't want to acknowledge that this Big Brother that's been planted in your head controls everything, according to your creed. You want to have it both ways. You want to be a slave, but you also want to think that your overseer allows you to be free(?)
And I haven't even asked you on what grounds you make such fantastic claims.
mammers11 2 years ago
If he controls everything, the conversation is irrelevant, and it would be hardly different than what you believe.
If there is no god, and there is only materialism, then everything you do is a result of previous events in the physical universe, though complex they are completely acting within what we call "natural law" and a computer of infinite calculating ability would be able to compute what will happen a century from now just by knowing what is occurring right now.
chukmaty 2 years ago
"If he controls everything...it would hardly be different than what you believe."
Hello, this is what You believe. You just don't want to acknowledge the full consequences of that belief.
mammers11 2 years ago
No my friend, while I am sure you know quite a bit... I am afraid you have not demonstrated an argument for why God controls me like a marionette and are yourself unable to come to terms with the consequences of naturalistic materialism.
A God capable of creating everything from nothing is capable of allowing free will despite complete knowledge. If he chooses not to, then we have very little say in it either way.
chukmaty 2 years ago
I say it is possible to have human choice with a God, not certain. I obviously believe that there is human choice. Without a god however, there is most definitely NO choice made by humanity that is not 100% illusion. With the absence of the spiritual man, there is only material causation which is ultimately deterministic in nature.
If God allows no choice, or if there is no god, then this conversation is irrelevant as it occurred not from two free thinking beings, but predetermined destiny.
chukmaty 2 years ago
1)Why does the absence of god make all choices an illusion? 2) There is no "If God allows no choice," the answer is He Allows None. I've already established this, and you have failed to refute it. 3) If there is no god, how can anything be pre-determined? Who does this alleged pre-determining? Think before you type.
mammers11 2 years ago
1) materialistic determinism.
2) You never established that God allows no choice, your attempt was not very good to begin with, not to be mean. I never had anything to refute really, I did explain why you were mistaken. It is really as simple as lookin in a dictionary, if you want to think about it on a deeper level you need to understand how time only affects the temporal universe and not a transcendent God.
3) No does the predetermining, fate is set on a path regardless.
chukmaty 2 years ago
I very plainly did establish that the concept of your christian god allows no choice. I'd rather not repeat myself.
As a 21st-century Christian apologist, you have undertaken the impossible task of reconciling the ideas of divine totalitarianism with human liberty. And in that attempt, you have said that without god, nature determines for us what happens. Say it ain't so.
I am very glad that no Evidence exists to support the claims of Christianity. Death to tyrants.
mammers11 2 years ago
In a way I completely agree, as it describes many events that are impossible according to natural laws, like resurrection.
It is however not ridiculous to believe in a God, or for that matter that his character is similar to what is described in the Bible.
I think we can see that different religions vary in quality, some religions can make more sense than others and vice versa.
chukmaty 2 years ago
It is interesting to me to see that there is a deep humility in him.
henjokongo 2 years ago